“I think people need the nanny state occasionally,” he says. I say: Define “occasionally.” As with his crusade against “assault weapons,” his rhetoric frequently betrays much grander regulatory ambitions than what he’s ostensibly arguing for. If you’re going to give government a mandate to “make the populace healthier,” there’s no way you’re going to stop at a half-assed, almost completely arbitrary restriction on soda portions. You’re going to go further. What I want to know is, how much? Where is the point, whether on guns or on nutrition, where this guy thinks the average individual can be trusted? No one seriously believes Bloomy’s soda ban will do much to improve New Yorkers’ health. If you’re serious about that, you have to do more. If he’s unwilling to draw a line, then the only conclusion is that he’s following the same incrementalist strategy towards a far-left outcome as Jan Schakowsky.

By the way, his guest here, who spends three minutes gently pushing back against the food police, is no Republican. That’s Christine Quinn — loyal Democrat, usually loyal Bloomberg ally, current president of the New York City Council, and quite possibly Bloomy’s successor as mayor. This is why I said in yesterday’s post that the court ruling is a big deal. In most cases, he’d simply get the city legislature to hand him the power he’s asking for. Not this time. Maybe.